Why are public officials and investors two roles do not coincide? Does institutional role become distorted in the face of major investments? Where should the public advisor stand? Where does advice end and identification with the investor begin? Why is the objectivity of institutions critical? When and how do citizens accept an investment? Why is trust in institutions a foundation? Dr. Nikolaos Arvanitidis, Economic Geologist, addresses the need for role preservation and institutional integrity in the investment environment.
A country's prospect of attracting and successfully completing an investment activity is not a matter of a single factor. It is a complex undertaking, a system of interdependencies, where every participant must move strictly within the boundaries of their role. When this alignment is disrupted, the price is not only investment failure but also the deep erosion of trust between the state and the citizens.
The division of responsibilities in a healthy investment ecosystem
In the field of, for example, productive exploitation of mineral deposits – from mining and processing of metallic and industrial minerals to quarrying of dimension stone and aggregates – roles should be clear:
- The investor describes and substantiates their business plan: financial data, technology, environmental management, jobs.
- The Public Administration, geological and other relevant research bodies, the academic community must act as guardians of the public interest. Their position is not to defend or promote the investment plan, but to evaluate it using objective criteria.
This function is neither optional nor a courtesy. It is a profound obligation, given that these bodies are funded by taxpayers. They are, in other words, advisors to those who pay. And as such, they must highlight any gaps, fractures or omissions: the lack of potential for full-scale value chain integration and implementation, the application of unsustainable practices, environmental risk.
The fundamental importance of objectivity, with credibility the ultimate goal
Faith in the objectivity of control and in transparency is the foundation of all social acceptance. When citizens perceive that those who serve them are capable of saying "no" to a ambiguous investor when the public interest demands it, then the path opens for a fruitful and honest dialogue. Only by ensuring trust can an investment have a positive outcome.
Role distortion – When the guardian of the public interest resembles an "advocate" for the investor
Unfortunately, the picture sometimes observed today is in many cases radically different. A pervasive distortion and deformation of institutional roles can take unjustified and unfair dimensions. Instead of distinguishing and protecting the objectivity of their position, some public bodies behave as if they are communication officers for various corporate investment schemes. They promote decisions, press releases and arguments from investors, and extol private initiatives without the necessary critical lens.
And of course, their employer is not the investor. It is the taxpayers themselves. They are the ones they must serve. When, for example, competent public bodies systematically downplay environmental reservations and adopt the private entity's arguments verbatim, they do not simply become "cooperative". In practice, they become, in the eyes of ordinary citizens, an institutional extension of investment interests.
The price is credibility. Citizens, witnessing this "identification", now question every opinion expressed about an investment. By the same logic, they question every answer given to their queries and concerns. If the public official is a "personification" of the investor, then where can the citizen turn for unbiased information?
The red lines that cannot be crossed
There are distinct, insurmountable red lines. It is not possible for the controller to become the "advocate" of the controlled. The State, having exclusive responsibility for licensing and environmental monitoring of investments, must uphold its institutional role intact toward citizens and the public interest at large.
Observing these lines is not a luxury. It is the only guarantee of a climate of genuine, not superficial, social acceptance. Without it, investments will either stop, perhaps justifiably, in the face of social reaction, or proceed amid doubt, leaving behind a "toxic" ground of conflict.
Credibility is hard to build and easily lost. Those who serve the public interest must remember daily their role as guardians of objectivity, impartiality and transparency. The only investment they should be promoting is society's investment in trust itself.
